MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820896723 · doi:10.1080/0376835x.2015.1063981

Challenges facing international projects for entrepreneurial development in South Africa

2015· article· en· W1820896723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophie Brière, Maripier Tremblay, Alain Daou

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Southern Africa · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipContext (archaeology)BusinessPrivate sector developmentPrivate sectorDeveloping countryPsychological interventionEconomic growthFace (sociological concept)Business developmentInternational developmentExploratory researchMarketingEconomicsSociologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International development projects that support entrepreneurship face a number of challenges, not least because they need to integrate different paradigms. Based on the case study of a Canadian non-governmental organisation in South Africa, this paper provides an exploratory assessment of these challenges and highlights four major factors that affect the success of such international projects: transposing a northern business model to the south; developing local roots and adapting to the local context; balancing the allocation of resources between managing the project and providing services to entrepreneurs; and aligning the cultures of the private sector and international development agencies. In practical terms, the findings provide benchmarks for the success of these projects and could help improve interventions that encourage entrepreneurship in developing countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment Southern AfricaSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207